Where do religion and humanistic nature draw the line for proper human behavior? Why do some people think it is necessary to die for their beliefs? In George Orwell's remarks about this very topic, he draws some points on the line between sainthood and human nature. Orwell analyzes Mohandas Gandhi's decisions about religious attitude and human nature. Orwell recognizes that it is not human nature to strive for perfection. Most humans are happy living healthy, sometimes sinful lives. Orwell uses several of Gandhi's quotations and actions to demonstrate the "saint's" point of view and his observations and knowledge of basic human nature to show the side of human imperfection. George Orwell makes a successfully persuasive argument as to the inhuman nature involved with sainthood by criticizing Gandhi's position and establishing his arguments.
             George Orwell uses concessions and refutations towards Gandhi's position to show the validity of his argument. Orwell begins his remarks with a concession saying that one of Gandhi's teachings is "unquestionably true." This builds the readers respect for Orwell by agreeing with a well-known authority on human enlightenment. Then Orwell continues to add to his agreement but with an added twist to make his words shift to a refutation and flat out criticism of Gandhi's position. He uses Gandhi's teachings against him by morphing his words to make human emotions, such as love, seem almost unreasonable and untrue. Gandhi has said, "Love means nothing if it does not mean loving some people more than others." The reader will obviously agree to this point making Gandhi's prior argument against friendship and relationships with other human beings invalid. Orwell uses concrete examples from Gandhi's autobiography to make him seem like a menace and a threat. These two things were never said of Gandhi before, so what makes Orwell so willing to say them now? Orwell uses the example of Gandhi's willingness to l...